Creationism in Museums and Schools

[Sigurd]

Like, the nordic religion, that this world is a part of a big tree.. With a squirrel running around...

BLASPHEMY!!!!

[InsaneApache]

All hail his noodleyness.

[Reverend Joe]

Evolution is not a scientific theory. Can't produce observable, testable, or repeatable results - like all legitimate scientific theories can. I know Darwinists like to counter this point with examples of variation within a kind, but that is not proving the outlandish claims of evolution like common descent of all forms of life from bacteria.

For evolution to be a scientific theory there would need to be observable, testable, and repeatable evidence of lower forms of life transforming into completely different higher forms of life with new, additional genetic information. But there is none. Therefore, evolution can only be accepted based on faith, not based on science.

As opposed to half the posters who seem to think evolution is a fact (despite it being widely accepted that this is not the case), and who seem to believe in it because they were told it was a fact.

Call it irony, but the very fact that there are large groups of people who believe what you two are saying makes me want to run into the nearest church and beg God to personally stop you before you take over.

You two really have no idea what you are talking about. Haven't you ever heard of the fossil record, ring species, vestigial organs, Whales, bacterial evolution, or even how terribly designed our eye is? If we were "intelligently designed," why the hell would our photoreceptors be pointing backwards and attached to a lump of gelly so weak that any swift blow could easily detach the retina, while the average squid is swimming around with perfectly designed eyes? And for that matter, why do we only have two legs, possibly the worst walking design in history? Shouldn't we have at least 3 for stability, if not 4? And why do we have so many back problems? Maybe, just MAYBE, the last two could be explained by the fact that we evolved from four-legged organisms, replacing our front legs with arms but failing to properly adapt our backs to upright walking.

Damnit.



Oh, and there's one other thing bugging me...

As for the issue with DNA, flesh comes from flesh, spirit comes from His Spirit, it doesn't change anything.

So apparently DNA was made by Jesus.

[Goofball]

I don't think creationism ever needs to be added to a science curriculum. That's different from saying it can't be discussed. It should be mentioned, and if need be, debated. Creationism (as in the world is 10,000 yrs old, ect), has little(no) scientific standing and if students think it does, it should be debated and discussed rather than stifled.

I'll partly support you on that one, Xiahou. I liked what this fellow had to say in the article:

But that ruling was questioned last week by an influential figure. The Rev Professor Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, says science teachers ought to be willing to talk about creationism if students bring the subject up.
He told the British Association Festival of Science in Liverpool that while making clear creationism is not accepted by the scientific community, teachers should convey a message of respect that does not "denigrate or ridicule" children's beliefs.

I have no problem with this. While a science teacher should never bring up Creationism on his/her own in class, if a student brings it up, the teacher should be prepared to discuss it in a reasonable, respectful manner, while making it clear that it has absolutely no basis in science, and can only be believed as a matter of pure faith. But he should also make it clear that even if his students don't believe in the theory of evolution, they had still better have knowledge of it if they want to pass their exams...

[Viking]

As opposed to half the posters who seem to think evolution is a fact (despite it being widely accepted that this is not the case), and who seem to believe in it because they were told it was a fact.

Add to that the fact that the same people seem to have absolutedly no understanding of creationism or what the Bible says on the matter, I don't see a lot of rational thought there.

So maybe you are right.

What you need is a science class, then you'd understand. Science deals only with theories; a theory that is tested again and again for ever without producing any wrong results are referred to as "laws", e.g. the formula for kinetic energy: Ek = 0,5mv^2. This formula isn't entirely accurate however, something that becomes apparent as we near the speed of light; in which case we need to use Einstein's formula from his theory of relativity.

There is nothing that supports creationism; while there is nothing that contradicts the theory of evolution. Therefore, you are, simply put, unscientific and dogmatic when you favour creationism.


----

BTW, I find the whole idea of ID rather funny. I think it's time to promote Stupid Design:

There are clear evidences that the creator of this universe either

a) is stupid
b) was drunk or intoxicated while creating the universe
c) didn't read the manual before creating the universe

There are several clear evidences that support this theory:

* the Earth and what we regard as liveable conditions do not make up the entire universe. Instead we are placed on a lone marble in a giantic universe filled up with lethal dangers.

* the Earth itself is also full of potential dangers, such as volcanoes, earth quakes, ultra violet radiation from the sun etc., clearly showing that the Designer had no clue as of what he was doing.

* the humans are animals just like the rest of the life on our planet; His divine fingers failed to create a clear distinction between humans and the rest; humanity are just another specie.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What's with all the ridiculing of the flat-earth society?



There is evidence for creationism. There's articles on genetics, fossils, and geology.

The first article also shows how presumptious many of the ideas behind the theory of evolution are.

[Ronin]

BTW, I find the whole idea of ID rather funny. I think it's time to promote Stupid Design:

There are clear evidences that the creator of this universe either

a) is stupid
b) was drunk or intoxicated while creating the universe
c) didn't read the manual before creating the universe

There are several clear evidences that support this theory:

* the Earth and what we regard as liveable conditions do not make up the entire universe. Instead we are placed on a lone marble in a giantic universe filled up with lethal dangers.

* the Earth itself is also full of potential dangers, such as volcanoes, earth quakes, ultra violet radiation from the sun etc., clearly showing that the Designer had no clue as of what he was doing.

* the humans are animals just like the rest of the life on our planet; His divine fingers failed to create a clear distinction between humans and the rest; humanity are just another specie.

he might have been stupid but we know he had a sense of humor....just look at the platypus...

All hail his noodleyness.

rAmen....

[Viking]

What's with all the ridiculing of the flat-earth society?



There is evidence for creationism. There's articles on genetics, fossils, and geology.

The first article also shows how presumptious many of the ideas behind the theory of evolution are.

Okay, I'll be right back. I have to put my theory of Stupid Design up on some fancy looking website, and then I'll come back and link to it; and thus debunk everything that you've said so far!

[Adrian II]

There is evidence for creationism. There's articles on www.answersingenesis.org.

That's just another Wiki, man. A Reli-Wiki. Don't throw links about as if you had really digested what they say; you just ofund them.

Think for yourself, study the issues, discuss. And accept a challenge when you are offered one. For instance why don't you answer the objections raised by the Reverend? They touch upon the obvious fact that human (or animal) design isn't 'intelligent' at all.

[Kadagar_AV]

Okay, I'll be right back. I have to put my theory of Stupid Design up on some fancy looking website, and then I'll come back and link to it; and thus debunk everything that you've said so far!

What he said.

But come to think of it... I do believe more in "stupid design" than ID.

As Roning stated, the platypus in itself would be somewhat proof the creater was stoned.

How about that, christians... I can sign that god might have had something to do with creation, if you agree he must be stupid and/or stoned.

[seireikhaan]

There is evidence for creationism. There's articles on genetics, fossils, and geology.

The first article also shows how presumptious many of the ideas behind the theory of evolution are.

I'm sorry, but that's a load of bologna, and that's only on a logical level.

The first link's first argument fails to actually argue against Darwin's point; he fails to argue why the environment has no implication on genetics. He just says its wrong.

The second argument fails to account for what he argues in his own third point, mutations, in addition to the genetic variability that separates a plant from an animal. That is, animals have different genetic pools than plants. And further, the fact that he failed to show any kind of evidence for environmental impact on genetics also hampers his argument.

The third example cherrypicks evidence; for example, there are now theories that Velociraptors and Dinonychus developed feathers through a genetic mutation. Feathers, in fact, would have been extremely helpful as they helped to regulate body temperature.

As for the 2nd link... WOW. First of all, it doesn't say WHAT class of animal the embro belongs to. Second, embroys, tend to have a lack of distinct features. Third, we have this neat little process callled CARBON DATING. We can estimate its age, and where the article states that "evolutionist believe", I strongly suspect it is really "archaeoligists, scientists, evolutionists, and anyone with half a brain believe". The article also demonstrates a patent lack of understanding of evolutionary theory when it assumes the fallacy that merely because a creature existed many millions of years ago that it must in fact be completely different than anything that exists now; hell, crocs, roaches, and sharks have existsed for tens of millions of years in various forms. I fail to see how the embryo in ANY logical way disproves evolution.

The third link doesn't work.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sorry about the third link, hopefully it will work if I post it the old-fashioned way:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...y-buried-first

Also, a special article for our mod:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti.../leapin-lemurs

I'll try to make a proper reply after dinner...

[JR-]

The third link doesn't work.

it's a real shame about the third link, as a geologist i was up for a laugh.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The earth isn't flat, storms are not caused by big hammer wielding Scandinavians, 1 + 1 isn't three and life wasn't created. School is meant to teach children these simple facts. Kids need only biology in school.


Creationism is simply (Abrahamic) religionist agitation and not a controversy. It is of no relevance to a school curriculum. There is no controversy. There are not two models to describe the origins of life - there are an infinite ones. No need to single out one and teach it as a counter-model or a controversy.

[Gregoshi]

The third link doesn't work.

Ah, the missing link...

[Kadagar_AV]

From the same source as the third link...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...3/n3/god-rules

[Ice]

Ah, the missing link...

I must be a huge nerd, but I find that hilarious.

[Rhyfelwyr]

For the issue of carbon dating and fossils, don't natural disasters have a big impact on the conclusions drawn from them? For example, it is widely accepted that thousands of years ago there were a series of superfloods which covered areas such as the Caspian Sea, the Aegean area, the Mediterranean etc. Also, there was a Great Flood, caused by the melting of the ice sheets, which had taken place by 8,000 years ago. Without directly relating this to Biblical floods, these superfloods did have a massive effect on the landscape. Not just the obvious affects the floods themselves had on sediment layers, but through the other natural disasters they triggered, eg supervolcanoes, tsunamies etc. I'm not a scientist but from what I remember these can dramatically alter readings gained through carbon dating, making fossils appear much older than they really are.

Also I think I should be more clear on creationist views towards evolution. Your standard US Evangelical tends to believe in microevolution, but rejects macroevolution. However, there is little need for this split within forms of evolution, and this is the viewpoint taken by the vast majority of scientists. The boundaries between the two are purely man-made, despite some vague ideas about fertility and the ability to reproduce. How do we judge when something evolves to a new species? In this respect, Christianity should not conflict with issues such as vestigial organs. I know some Christians argue penguins have wings to help with balance for example, but I don't really accept this idea myself, as it doesn't make sense in the long-run. Although I do appreciate that my views differ from the creationist mainstream in this and so I understand why the point was made.

Of course, I still do not accept that humans evolved from apes. Which brings me onto the point regarding our imperfect bodies. Admittedly, the point about the eyes and detaching retinas is a tough one. As a Christian, ridiculous as it sounds to many here I do believe that we were designed for living a peaceful existance in Eden, not in the violence of the world we know. By that logic, we wouldn't need to be built like tanks to protect ourselves. They're not that weakly designed anyway, I've taken my share of knocks and my retina's still attached. On the flip side, why would we evolve so bizarrely, especially considering that it is so unsuitable for our surroundings? Design flaws are tough for creationists or evolutionists to answer, maybe we simply don't understand the designs perfectly.

On the issue of having two legs, I think its an isue of interpretation. Why think of ourselves as an improvement over the apes (physically), instead of just being different? It is a fair line of thought to think, "we look similar to apes, so we must have grown to be genetically superior from them". But on the other hand, the apes are much better suited to their surroundings than we would be. Of course we have physical similarities, we live in the same world after all, but humans are better suited to the way they live. Of course we are not meant to sit in front of a PC all day as many here including myself probably do, which is why we tend to have so many back problems. We simply aren't using our bodies for what they were designed for (through a creator or evolution).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The trouble many of you are encountering in debating Navaros on this issue is simple. He doesn't accept your basic premise that "The Scientific Method" is the paramount tool for explanation of phenomena (in fact, he labels this belief as a "religious" belief). Since he does not accept this basic premise, he does not place any kind of "central" value to theories derived/proved thereby.

It is as though you are trying to argue about the nature of a specific color with someone who sees only on the infra-red end of the energy spectrum -- there is a basic disconnect.

You might think about this as an instance of differend, because you are speaking past one another and not really connecting.

[Big_John]

more than anything, it just makes me sad that people can be so deluded.

[Kadagar_AV]

Not just the obvious affects the floods themselves had on sediment layers, but through the other natural disasters they triggered, eg supervolcanoes, tsunamies etc. I'm not a scientist but from what I remember these can dramatically alter readings gained through carbon dating, making fossils appear much older than they really are.

Atom radiation halves at the same speed, floods and volcanoes doesnt change it.

And no, you are obviosly not a scientist, we found something to agree on!

[woad&fangs]

yes, but carbon dating measures the ratio of C-12 to C-14 and volcanic ash messes with that ratio.

[Rhyfelwyr]

yes, but carbon dating measures the ratio of C-12 to C-14 and volcanic ash messes with that ratio.

That's the point I was trying to make, I knew it was something to do with ashes.

[Tribesman]

It was only a matter of time before someone was silly enough to cite that bollox from Hams site .
Well done Rhyfelwyr
Whats your next party piece to give us a good laugh ?
Will it be this one perhaps ?.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPM7FI_QuWA

[woad&fangs]

That's the point I was trying to make, I knew it was something to do with ashes.

But what you must also remember is that Volcanic ash settles in layers. Anything above or below that layer will be fairly accurate.

[Rhyfelwyr]

SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
SPAM SPAM SPAM

Another thoughtful and enlightening post from Tribesey.

[Tribesman]

Another thoughtful and enlightening post from Tribesey.

Far more enlightening than that crap from Ham that has been posted and thoroughly demolished here more times than I care to think about .

[Goofball]

Of course, I still do not accept that humans evolved from apes.

Neither do scientists.

[InsaneApache]

Think for yourself.

There you go.

[KarlXII]

Neither do scientists.

TRIPLEHIT3000000000000000000000000 HP



In all seriousness, why can't religion and evolution go hand in hand? I'm a devout Lutheran, a believer in God, I think that God created life on Earth and maintains it. However, I also believe evolution is his way to better develop a species. Sounds strange, I know, but my point is, why do you think evolution cannot go with religion?

Or do you think God does not have that ability?